What's new

Have any of you seen this monstrosity? (1 Viewer)

Marty Christion

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 3, 2001
Messages
229
I thought you were kidding about "Fight Club", but they do have it! I can't imagine how you could make that film palatable for someone who is easily offended. Maybe they could take out all references to fighting and call it "Bridge Club".
 

Scooter

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 3, 1998
Messages
1,505
Location
DFW Area Texas
Real Name
Scooter
It gives parents a choice..period. And if you are not having their version of something force fed to you..what's the issue?

There were films on laser I would copy to tape when my kids were younger so I could delete certain things I thought were not appropriate at whatever age. A quick reference that comes to mind is Passenger 57...when the hijacker makes a reference to necrophelia with a flight attendent. And a coupla other scenes. Overall the movie was good guy versus bad guy..good guy wins. So..who did I hurt doing that? No one.

And these folks don't hurt anyone either.
 

Brian_J

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 3, 2001
Messages
418
Some of you are looking a little too hard for things to offend your free speach senses. This is not one of them.

Brian
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Scooter, I think the reason this touches off concerns is that it questions the validity of exposing someone to edited art at all.
Say we take out all capitalist, democratic or western cultural references in "The Grapes of Wrath" or anything believed to be anti-government from "1984" or "Fahrenheit 451". Has the reader then actually read the book? In fact, what is the point then of even reading the book.
Because the offensive material is highly subjective, even considering children, it brings to question the idea of utilizing censored material when there are so many alternative options with similar themes and without the "offensive" material.
I'm not promoting anyone stopping how you do things, nor do I really care that this company is in business, but isn't altering a film to your taste at least the same as requesting a Pan and Scan version of a film, or a colorized version?
It's not the artists film anymore.
I think the key in your specific case is that you see the film as simply entertainment. You bought the LD, the tape and the VCR, so more power to you.
But people are going to question who makes these decisions on a professional, socially encompassing level. CapAlert, OK, MPAA are all arbitrary groups who cannot possibly represent the moral values of all of society. As a guideline they have their place, but I think the best place for such administration is where you have placed it...in your own home.
So I'm not sure how good their business model is. It seems good now till you get one of their films and they leave in some content that is offensive to you. Then you call and complain. Multiply this across their entire market and you start to get a lot of unhappy customers. I think it's far too difficult to regulate what other people will find acceptable.
And I think it makes little sense to utilize this option either. If the film (or book, song, etc) had that content, it had it for a reason. If I don't like the content I move on to a different piece rather than try to alter that one to be what I want.
Of course to be able to avoid such situations it's best have some source for content guidelines.
But then we have another irony...you are letting someone who WOULD WATCH something objectionable determine what is objectionable for you. And it can never be any other way.
That's why people make fun of those people that tell everyone in the flock to "not see this film. I saw it and it's filth. If anyone is going to watch filth around here, it's going to be me?"...err, what?? :)
 

MickeS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2000
Messages
5,058
it brings to question the idea of utilizing censored material when there are so many alternative options with similar themes and without the "offensive" material.
Exactly. "Passenger 57", for example, is a very violent movie, with or without references to necrophilia, that is IMO not suitable for children. If one were to edit out the violence, it might be more suitable, but the whole point of the movie is to be violent, so by editing it out, what's left isn't the same movie at all (and at a running time of around 80 minutes or so already, there wouldn't be much left :)).
If people want to do it, that's fine, but I would think that there must be better and more exciting movies that could be shown instead.
To me, it has little to do with free speech, it's more about appreciation of movies.
/Mike
 

Larry Seno Jr.

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 28, 2002
Messages
527
Think of it this way:

If you wrote a book, and someone cut out parts of the book and resold it, would you be offended? I would.

The point is that if you are OAR, you have to be AGAINST censorship. There isn't two ways about it. You are either FOR the directors intension, vision, and respecting film as an art form as well as a form of entertainment; or you're on the other side of tens of thousands of well written, well financed, and motivated denizens of hometheaterforum.com.

I don't see two sides to this coin at all.
 

Matt Stone

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2000
Messages
9,063
Real Name
Matt Stone
I agree...Director's intent is more of a principle issue. Either you support it, or you don't. It seems to be one of the few "non-gray" areas of life...hehe.
 

Brian_J

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 3, 2001
Messages
418
I might have a little more respect for "director's intent" if the directors themselves did as well. But seeing as how many of their films show up on television edited the exact same way, I dont in this regard.

Brian
 

JasenP

Screenwriter
Joined
Dec 21, 1999
Messages
1,284
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
Real Name
Jasen
I'm sorry, but there are films MADE for children. We shouldn't force films intended for adults into a mold for childrens consumption.

You take out all the profanity, nudity, and violence out of a film but that still won't make a film suitable for children.
 

Brad Eisenhauer

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 28, 2002
Messages
66
Larry Seno Jr. wrote:
...if you are OAR...
I know I'm definitely OAR. Haven't had my arms chopped off to fit in a narrower screen. :D I'd like to stay that way too. I'm kind of a tall guy, and I don't like the idea of having my legs broken to fit into a casket when I'm dead and gone. I am OAR, and I intend to stay that way! Though there seems to be this "widescreen" sort of thing trying to happen around my midsection. :frowning:
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
 

Bill Slack

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 16, 1999
Messages
837
omg. You can buy an edited version of Schindlers List.

Thank god, now we can teach five year olds about the holocaust knowing that it won't overwelm or disturb them! Thank you OK.coM!
 

Geoffrey_A

Second Unit
Joined
May 22, 2001
Messages
280
I might have a little more respect for "director's intent" if the directors themselves did as well. But seeing as how many of their films show up on television edited the exact same way, I dont in this regard.
There is a difference here. On television films are edited for time and content for several reasons.

1) This is a public exhibition, anyone flipping channels can come across this and neither the director nor the studio want's to be sued for exposing minors to inappropriate material.

2) Commercials. Basically, making money.

3) If they put the uncut movie on the air, no one would buy the movie. they'd just tape it off tv (except for us OAR nuts)

The difference comes in that with home video, you are *paying* to see the film. As such, if it offends you, you have no one to blame but yourself for not finding out more about the film before purchasing or renting it. The format obsolves the Director and Studio from legal responsibility.
 

Nick_Scott

Second Unit
Joined
Sep 9, 2001
Messages
321
Anyone remember when Comedy Central first showed a Cheech and Chong movie (the one with the Space Ship).

They -completely removed- any drug reference. They used a very heavy amount of editing, zooms/crops, and lots and lots of ADR.

Naturally, the movie didn't make any sense. Probobly the same situation with ok.com unless they are just editing out the nudity and bad words.

nick
 

Rob Lutter

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2000
Messages
4,523
And edited version of Braveheart? Would that even make sense? (you would have to cut out the beginning, the battles, the nudity, and the ending)... it would be about 3 minutes long ;)
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
I would suppose if you own a legal copy of a movie, you can do what you want with it.
not quite.
U.S. copyright law grants copyright holders the exclusive right to control, among other things, copying, distribution, and preparation of derivative works of their copyrighted material. the so-called First Sale doctrine allows an owner of a legal copy to re-sell that copy; it creates an exception to the distribution right, but only the distribution right. copying that work and preparing derivative works based on that copy are not allowable.
here, the DVD technology, since it works on-the-fly, is likely legal (see my posts in this thread for an explanation). the VHS items, however, appear to be copies that they edit themselves and then send to you. if done without permission, this is very likely a copyright infringment.
DJ
 

Brian Kidd

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2000
Messages
2,555
I think I'm going to take a print of the Last Supper by DaVinci and paint out that Judas guy. He ruined a perfectly good meal, after all.

Seriously, a film must be taken as one whole piece of art, not separate scenes. To condone editing for personal morals is reprehensible. If a film offends, don't watch it. There are plenty more out there that won't. What these people are doing is wrong and probably illegal. I hope they are shut down soon.
 

Ryan_M_M

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 27, 2001
Messages
121
There is a difference from films that are Edited For Television in that a film edited for prime time viewing may in fact be extended in some way to attract big ratings and increase advertising revenue. Though The TV Novel adaptation of the Godfather I and II had much violense edited out, it did however feature a lot of extra footage not present in either theatrical films. ABC on their initial screening of Superman put it on over 2 nites, since it was heavily padded with 40 minutes of extra footage.
 

Brian Perry

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 6, 1999
Messages
2,807
An edited version of Braveheart? Would that even make sense?
Actually, according to Mel Gibson in the DVD commentary, the final torture scene WAS heavily edited. He wanted to show the blood and guts but test screenings thankfully made him change his mind.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,710
Messages
5,121,107
Members
144,146
Latest member
SaladinNagasawa
Recent bookmarks
1
Top